Another thing - all the opinions pilots have offered about these guys' skill level....you have to take it with a grain of salt.

First of all, everybody hates them and nobody is going to say "You know, old Mo was a pretty damn good student." Oh no. They're going to say they can't believe he could pilot a tricycle through a series of road cones.

Guess who disagreed? The instructors who signed off in their logbooks so they could go take their private pilot tests and their instrument tests and their commercial tests. And the FAA inspectors who took them on their check rides for those ratings. They didn't just **** their credentials. There were people experienced with pilot evaluations flying in the seat next to them making sure they could do the **** they were supposed to be able to do. And they saw that they could do it.

None of this is relevant because I haven't referenced any such statement from any instructors at all.

And nobody really knows how much simulator time they had. They could've had a simulator in their fucking living room. They're readily available and not that expensive. Some software, a couple big monitors and a few pieces of hardware and you're ready to go. It's not that big of a stretch to think a guy who already understands aerodynamics and flight principles could spend some time on a simulator and get enough of a grip to get an already airborne jet from point A to point B.

No dude. You're thinking this:

And I'm talking about this:

And we know exactly how many days training they had on such equipment: two.

Last edited by Matt Phillips; 1/29/2013 6:54pm at .

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

My thinking leads me to think that they might have trained for the specific purpose of hitting a target, which might not have raised many eyebrows, considering that I imagine that crashing a simulator is par for the course, an accepted learning curve. So while every other student is doing their best to fly right and land in the simulator, ol' Jihadi Al-Qaeda seems to be fucking up in very specific ways. An instructor might think, "damn, this guy SUCKS", give him a few extra hours to practice in the simulator, practicing how to crash in a precise manner, then, so as to not arouse suspicion, does some base level landing, etc and whammo, licence, knowledge and the potential ability to **** **** up.

Even pre 9-11, it seems pretty ludicrous that a guy could not just botch a landing, but botch a landing by difficultly piloting the plane into the same world monument a pretty low number of times before it'd seem intentional. I'd put it in the ballpark of 2-3 times before it was abundantly obvious that it was intentional.

You constantly throw around "I iz an sientieest" appeal, but it is weird how number fudging is okay. Wait, I apologize, number fudging is okay when YOU do it. If it is someone else, god forbid, your ass is trotting out proofs and calculations to call them wrong.

LOL@YOU. Every time you accuse me of playing semantics, which is in my field, I secretly chuckle when I watch you do the same things in your field.

Dude, this is so beneath you. Both the difference between 10's and 100's of flight hours, and the difference between sea level and 1000 ft altitude do not affect my argument at all. Career pilots with 10 times their 100's of hours flight time couldn't match the feat in simulation, and these are professionals. The difference between 0 ft and 1000 ft amounts to .0025 Mach which is less than 2 miles per hour.

On this basis you are accusing me of "fudging" the numbers? Fudging numbers involves tampering with the data presented in order to alter the conclusion. Nothing you mention alters the conclusion at all.

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

Do you understand anything at all of what I am saying? Your claim is that a sample of pilots showed that 100% of them could not manage the trick. My response is "Oh yeah?"

I never said anything like that; I never mentioned the "aural warnings" at all.

Do you have any idea of what I am saying? You do realize that I was quoting, with a link, a comment Bursill made about Crash Logic in his simulator test, right?

Please do. I would rather be wrong about this.

Ah, I see, you're not at all paying attention, despite the fact that you say you wish you'd be wrong about 9/11. Don't worry-you are wrong about 9/11. Again, that was a linked quote, not my comment. The idea with a link is that you're to click on it. But you're too busy playing Wikipedia Brown and The Smartest Guy on Bullshido to read.

If crash logic is off... IF... my understanding is that the sim won't crash the plane regardless of how fast you go.

The point is that people have already tried to suggest to Bursill that he must have had Crash Logic off, and he says no, it was on.

Watching now. Before I start I should add that the second (longer) video is an official product of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and, I assume, represents their official view on the subject of UA175's speed. It doesn't sound like it was intra-handled conclusively at all, since this view is in oppositions to others you have referenced inside the broader Truther community.

I said intra-"truther", not intra-Pilots for 9/11. It's funny that you think the Pilots are just disinterested parties looking for the truth, rather than committed ideologues ginning up evidence.

PS: I am also amused that your "hours of training" hang-up has migrated from the world of martial arts to here, as has your "We don't have sufficient evidence, so we must draw conclusions based on flimsy analogies and inapt comparisons!" hang-up.

Having ZERO experience in this field, I think I am most qualified to think outside the box, so I have a thought. These schools they trained at, with simulators, would they have offered free practice on these simulators? As in, they've obviously paid a fee to train there, so is it conceivable that they were able to use the equipment off the books? Or even if they were able to use the equipment on the books, what was the level of monitoring they experienced?

My thinking leads me to think that they might have trained for the specific purpose of hitting a target, which might not have raised many eyebrows, considering that I imagine that crashing a simulator is par for the course, an accepted learning curve. So while every other student is doing their best to fly right and land in the simulator, ol' Jihadi Al-Qaeda seems to be fucking up in very specific ways. An instructor might think, "damn, this guy SUCKS", give him a few extra hours to practice in the simulator, practicing how to crash in a precise manner, then, so as to not arouse suspicion, does some base level landing, etc and whammo, licence, knowledge and the potential ability to **** **** up.

Nothing scientific, but this is pre 911 days, when people wouldn't really have thought that Islami Fundamentalist dude crashing a plane over and over screaming "Allah Akbar" at a computer screen was all that much of a threat. They might've seen it as just frustration that he wasn't getting it.

The facility they trained at was notorious for taking students' money and not giving them all the sim time they paid for, not giving away free time. In any case they were only there for 2 days.

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

is expensive hardware. The software is essentially the same. I use a flight sim package which can be, with the addition of certified hardware, used to log hours towards initial certification and currency.

Do you understand anything at all of what I am saying? Your claim is that a sample of pilots showed that 100% of them could not manage the trick. My response is "Oh yeah?"

No, my claim is that all of them managed it at landing speeds, and that only their instructor managed it at max cruising speed, and only after several times. If you think Mr Govatos is misreporting this exercise, I suggest you contact him and raise your concerns http://www.linkedin.com/pub/j-dan-govatos/9/780/779

Do you have any idea of what I am saying? You do realize that I was quoting, with a link, a comment Bursill made about Crash Logic in his simulator test, right?

So... what... you quoted him responding to someone else and expected me to know it wasn't you responding to me?

Ah, I see, you're not at all paying attention, despite the fact that you say you wish you'd be wrong about 9/11. Don't worry-you are wrong about 9/11. Again, that was a linked quote, not my comment. The idea with a link is that you're to click on it. But you're too busy playing Wikipedia Brown and The Smartest Guy on Bullshido to read.

Wrong about what exactly? You link to one video, make no argument of your own, and then it's on to the insults. We're going to have to check the calculation made in that video first.

The point is that people have already tried to suggest to Bursill that he must have had Crash Logic off, and he says no, it was on.

And you think it wasn't a fair question on my part? It's the OBVIOUS question, and they were right to ask.

I said intra-"truther", not intra-Pilots for 9/11. It's funny that you think the Pilots are just disinterested parties looking for the truth, rather than committed ideologues ginning up evidence.

Dude, you are so lost. I don't think anything about them at all, beyond that I expect that their official video represents their beliefs on the matter.

PS: I am also amused that your "hours of training" hang-up has migrated from the world of martial arts to here, as has your "We don't have sufficient evidence, so we must draw conclusions based on flimsy analogies and inapt comparisons!" hang-up.

You seriously believe that I invented flight-hours as the standard measure for experience in pilots? It's in the conversation because it was mentioned several times in the second video.

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie

Dude, this is so beneath you. Both the difference between 10's and 100's of flight hours, and the difference between sea level and 1000 ft altitude do not affect my argument at all. Career pilots with 10 times their 100's of hours flight time couldn't match the feat in simulation, and these are professionals. The difference between 0 ft and 1000 ft amounts to .0025 Mach which is less than 2 miles per hour.

On this basis you are accusing me of "fudging" the numbers? Fudging numbers involves tampering with the data presented in order to alter the conclusion. Nothing you mention alters the conclusion at all.

No, this is your new trope! Beneath me is engaging you in a **** contest of who can post the best rhetoric filled post; but it is fun! A scientist trying to claim minute variances and numbers DON'T MATTER is beneath you!

As you well know, unless you are a fraud, minute variances can be the difference between a plane disintegrating or people in this thread arguing with you over 1000 feet vs Sea level!

No, my claim is that all of them managed it at landing speeds, and that only their instructor managed it at max cruising speed, and only after several times. If you think Mr Govatos is misreporting this exercise, I suggest you contact him and raise your concerns http://www.linkedin.com/pub/j-dan-govatos/9/780/779

Why would I need to do that?

So... what... you quoted him responding to someone else and expected me to know it wasn't you responding to me?

Yes. I expect you to understand what a colon means, and to be able to use your eyes to see that some of the text on your screen looks different—that it is a link. If you are incapable of this, you should not be participating on a bulletin board. If you are capable of it, you missed it for some other reason. I suspect because you're too busy trying to show off how clever you are to actually be clever.

Wrong about what exactly? You link to one video, make no argument of your own, and then it's on to the insults. We're going to have to check the calculation made in that video first.

You are wrong that the speed of the 767 is impossible without a crack-up, wrong to claim that the Egypt Air flight is strong evidence for 767 crack-ups at speed (and wrong to use the "shot in the head" analogy), wrong to take the YouTube video claims at face value, wrong in your own estimation of your ability to suss out what happened on 9/11.

And you think it wasn't a fair question on my part? It's the OBVIOUS question, and they were right to ask.

What you should have done is spend ten seconds looking around to see whether or not the question was asked and answered, rather than waving away Bursill's claims. After all, it was the obvious question, right?

Dude, you are so lost. I don't think anything about them at all, beyond that I expect that their official video represents their beliefs on the matter.

That's funny, since you're arguing their position for them here.

You seriously believe that I invented flight-hours as the standard measure for experience in pilots?

Nope, learn to read. What you don't get is that flight-hours, much like training-hours in martial arts, isn't as definitive as you need it to be to make the claims you're making. Training-hours is a way of saticificing for certification, etc. It doesn't actually tell us all that much about the specifics of who can do what in what plane under what circumstances other than "Fly it, land it, not kill anyone."